Prior to the 17th Amendment’s passage, state legislative bodies chose their respective senators. Then, on April 18th, 1913, the amendment was ratified, effectively transferring power from the legislature to the electorate.
During the GOP’s convention in Idaho Falls last weekend, delegates voted to support a resolution calling for a 17th Amendment repeal.
I have to admit, I’m a little skeptical. When I talk to people, what concerns them becomes evident pretty quick:
“Obama’s health care plan is going to destroy our country.”
“Why don’t they seal the border!”
“Congress needs to stop deficit spending.”
That’s the kind of stuff I hear, and you probably do too.
Not once, though, have I ever heard:
“Boy we need to take the power to select US Senators from the People and give it back to the legislature.”
It’s almost as if one end of the house is burning, and some are on the other end ponderously considering changing the taupe-colored paint in the spare bedroom.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s not my intent to poo-poo the concept of legislature-selected Senators. It has its benefits. Sparing would-be senators the process of expensive public campaigns would negate some of the political ugliness we get to witness every six years. For the same reason senators would be somewhat less prone to listen to lobbyists and special interest groups. Furthermore, unqualified candidates couldn’t “sneak” their way into office via a three-way race, or some form of demagoguery. The idea has merit, or the Founders would not have placed it in the Constitution.
One of the arguments for a repeal, that I’ve heard, is that Senators would be more accountable to the state if the legislature decides. Really? Are the people somehow less qualified to look out for the state’s interest? I suppose the answer could be a “yes” on this, but in general the more power we put into citizens’ hands, the better.
Let’s say we’re for the repeal of the 17th Amendment. It would take an immense amount of human labor, financial backing, and time to accomplish. The results would hopefully be an improved Senate. You’re still going to have liberals appointed, and you’re still going to have scheming men and women selected. Improvement? Perhaps. Revolutionary change? No way. Let’s apply that time, effort, and money to something more accomplishable with better results. We live in an age of such political weight that we have to apply our resources thoughtfully and methodically. The ROI on a 17th Amendment repeal isn’t too attractive to me.
We’re more effective if we focus like a laser on specific issues: stopping illegal immigration, fighting mandated health care, halting the spread of federal land grabs, and a myriad of other issues of great concern to the electorate at large.
Popularity: 1%
. Plus that leaves me a day to spend money elsewhere, so yes, there is money to be made on Sunday.
Loading ...
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
The idea of repealing the 17th is so flawed and wrongheaded on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin. Proponents get kind of rabid about it, I’ve noticed, and immediately accuse opponents of somehow being duped by the Hearst muckraking stories and “propaganda” being published at the time the 17th was ratified. Rather than toss out the meaty reasons why the 17th should stand (maybe later; we’ll see what other commenters have to say), I’ll submit this one:
We’ve all seen the various cast of…er…”colorful” characters from around the state that get elected to the Idaho legislature; are we convinced that they know better than we as voting citizens, and should be trusted to pick our Senators?
Top ↑I’m absolutely opposed against anything that takes power from the people and puts into the hands of a few.
Top ↑Obama’s appointments of czars and abuse of office through his recent shake down of BP are great examples of what happens when a government entity usurps more power than is good for them. Why, then, would we voluntarily give more exclusionary rights and power to a run-away government.
Idaho legislators haven’t been voting on issues the way I would like to see many of them voted on – who’s to say they’d do better in selecting Senators?
Top ↑Obama has done more for this country than the previous 4 administrations combined!
Top ↑You’re right
- more debt in 2 years than the last four administrations combined
- more unemployed workers than the last four had at any time in their administrations
- more books about himself than the last four administrations had out before 2 full years in office.
- more oil on the Gulf beaches than the last four administrations combined
- more Czars than the last four administrations combined
- more usurped power from the executive branch than any of the last four administrations
- more public dissapproval within the first two years of office
- more closed door legislating, from a supposed ‘transparent’ president
- more attacks on our constitution and laws than the last four administrations combined
- more appeasing of the enemies than the last four administrations combined
I’d say he’s done more in two years than the last four administrations combined, and only a person with socialist/communist beliefs in large government can appreciate it. Sad part is, though, everything he’s doing are reversals of what this country was built on and is great because of.
Top ↑The one good thing about Obama is that he’s better than George W Bush by a mile. But thats like saying stepping on dog poo is better than falling on your face in dog poo.
Top ↑Typical conservative aren’t you Kevin? I’ll be honest I voted for Obama but I don’t approve of everything he’s done. He is however much better than Bush.Certain people around here seem to say that Obama doesn’t agree with people against his policies and agenda but George was like that too. What makes people wise is the ability to question their President whether we like them or not.
Top ↑Proud conservative, more likely. I would tell you that I was not exactly thrilled with Bush in the end of his presidency. His bailout was the beginning of a horrible trend in government spending. I’m just flat out sick and tired of politicians promising they will be bi-partisan and then shutting out opposition at every turn from either party.
Bush may have been soft on the boarders and big on oil, but I have never seen a President burn a hole in the pockets of this country faster than Obama. Bush was by far NOT one of the greatest presidents this country has had, but mark my words, history will show that Obama’s disregard for the Consitution will do more to damage this country than any single man has ever done.
Top ↑So what does Obama have to do with repealing the 17th Amendment?
Uh- nothing. Nothing at all. Not every local or state issue revolves around what Obama does or doesn’t do.
I seldom agree with Neal, and have been harsh with him in the past, but I fully agree with his thoughts on this one. The Republican convention went too far with this, and combined with the passage of a required Loyalty Oath to stand by the Party’s planks, I think they are only going to get in more trouble soon. I don’t know what was in the punch bowl, but it sure affected the convention strangely. I was hoping to see some solutions on our school funding crisis, but they got involved in this nonsense instead.
Top ↑The political scene today is far too polarized.
Top ↑Repealing the 17th Amendment would be the best step in restoring federalism and state’s rights.
Top ↑In their wisdom, the Founders created one body of Congress to be the voice of the people-the House, and the othre voice of the states-the Senate. For more than 100 years, a main task of the senators was to protect the rights of the states against the power of the federal government. If senators were still chosen by the state legislatures to be the guardian of state sovereignty, many usurpations and encroachments carried out by the federal government would not have occurred.
Tim,
If Senators were chosen by state legislators can you imagine the propensity for corruption? Why would a candidate spend so much of a campaign war chest on getting elected when all he had to do was line the right pockets of a few state legislators? Can you say Rod Blagojevich? No, Urling, the present system is just fine, thank you.
Top ↑